On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:13:07 PM UTC-7, Simon King wrote:
>
> I think this would make sense---of course with bidirectional coercions,
> as mentioned in my previous mail.
>
Bidirectional coercion implies memory leak: The strong references to the
codomains on the coercion maps will keep
Hi Simon,
>> I'm not sure I understand correctly; do you mean that the problem is
>> caused by fields comparing equal even if the implementations are
>> different? I think we should in any case make FiniteField inherit
>> from WithEqualityById, so two instances compare equal if and only if
>> the
On top of that, Python3 want have cmp anymore :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, se
Thanks for all the answers.
It seems my issues was caused by defining the _cmp_ method with the wrong
number of underscores in my cython extension classes.
Do you confirm that for parents defined in a usual Python class __cmp__
with two underscores should be used and for a cython extension class
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:05:15 PM UTC+2, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Jean-Pierre,
>
> On 2014-08-19, Jean-Pierre Flori > wrote:
> > Though (non-prime) finite fields with the same order and defining
> > polynomial are considered equal, I'd say the hashes should be different.
>
> Absolutely n
Hi Peter,
On 2014-08-19, Peter Bruin wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand correctly; do you mean that the problem is caused
> by fields comparing equal even if the implementations are different? I
> think we should in any case make FiniteField inherit from WithEqualityById,
> so two instances c
Hi Jean-Pierre,
> I'm not sure I understand correctly; do you mean that the problem is
> caused by fields comparing equal even if the implementations are
> different? I think we should in any
>
> Not sure.
> I seem to be able to produce things with different hashes but equal...
> sage: GF(1
Hi Jean-Pierre,
On 2014-08-19, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> Though (non-prime) finite fields with the same order and defining
> polynomial are considered equal, I'd say the hashes should be different.
Absolutely no way. If they are considered equal, then the hashes must be
the same.
It may, howe
I guess _cmp_ should be used for cython parents and __cmp__ for python ones.
There is in parent.pyx:
# Both are parents -- but need *not* have the same type.
if HAS_DICTIONARY(left):
r = left.__cmp__(right)
else:
r = left._cmp_(rig
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:26:13 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> I also see that some double underscore methods rather than single
> underscore ones are implemented, that might be one of the problems here.
>
Or the other way around...
--
You received this message because you are sub
I also see that some double underscore methods rather than single
underscore ones are implemented, that might be one of the problems here.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 7:39:18 PM UTC+2, Peter Bruin wrote:
>
> Hi Jean-Pierre,
>
> I'm currently wrapping FLINT fq modules into new Sage classes for finite
>> fiels and got strange coercion errors when running non trivial code.
>> Indeed, the polynomial ring constructors use a dictionary a
Hi Jean-Pierre,
I'm currently wrapping FLINT fq modules into new Sage classes for finite
> fiels and got strange coercion errors when running non trivial code.
> Indeed, the polynomial ring constructors use a dictionary and so relies on
> the hash of finite fields (the parents).
> By some chance
13 matches
Mail list logo
